Wesson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 579, 2009 WL 4506539, 38 So. 3d 746 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A merchant who has a reasonable, good-faith belief that a person is shoplifting possesses probable cause to detain and prosecute them, providing immunity from civil liability for false imprisonment and defeating a claim for malicious prosecution. A criminal case dismissed by agreement where the accused pays court costs cannot be used to establish a favorable termination or a lack of probable cause.
Facts:
- On July 13, 2004, Kim Gallegly Wesson took her car to a Wal-Mart store for service and shopped inside with her four children while waiting.
- Wesson was on a Wal-Mart 'watch list' for having previously picked up prescriptions on at least two occasions without paying for them.
- While in the store, Wesson picked up two prescriptions from the pharmacy, telling an associate she would pay for them at another checkout counter.
- A loss prevention associate, Kyle Jack, was notified Wesson was in the store and began observing her.
- At the Tire and Lube Express (TLE) department checkout, Jack observed Wesson pay for groceries and her car service but not for the prescriptions that were in her shopping cart.
- Jack testified that he heard Wesson refer to the items in the child-seat portion of the cart, which included the prescriptions, as her 'personal items' when questioned by the cashier.
- Wesson then left the store with her children and the unpaid prescriptions.
- Jack and another employee stopped Wesson in the parking lot, at which point she admitted she had not paid for the prescriptions.
Procedural Posture:
- Kim Gallegly Wesson sued Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., and its employee, Kyle Jack, in an Alabama trial court for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
- Wal-Mart and Jack filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Wesson could not establish the required elements of her claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart and Jack.
- Wesson's post-judgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment was denied by the trial court.
- Wesson, the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Alabama Supreme Court.
- The Alabama Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for a decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a merchant and its employee have probable cause to detain and prosecute a customer for theft when the customer, who was on a 'watch list' for prior unpaid items, is observed leaving the store without paying for merchandise after forgoing multiple opportunities to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Judge.
Yes. A merchant and its employee have probable cause to detain and prosecute a customer under such circumstances, defeating claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. To establish malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant initiated a judicial proceeding without probable cause. Probable cause is a reasonable ground for suspicion based on the facts as they appeared at the time. Here, Jack had probable cause based on undisputed facts: 1) Wesson's name was on a list for prior unpaid prescriptions; 2) Jack observed her pick up new prescriptions and fail to pay for them at two separate opportunities; and 3) he witnessed her leave the store with the merchandise. Wesson's argument that the dismissal of her criminal case creates an inference of no probable cause fails. The record shows the case was 'dismissed by agreement' and Wesson paid court costs, which under the precedent of Chatman, means she 'bought her peace' and cannot use the dismissal to prove either a favorable termination or a lack of probable cause. Regarding the false imprisonment claim, Alabama Code § 15-10-14 grants merchants immunity from civil liability for detaining a suspected shoplifter if they have probable cause. Since the court found probable cause existed, Wal-Mart and Jack are immune from this claim as well.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong legal protections afforded to merchants under Alabama's shopkeeper's privilege statute. It clarifies that probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances known to the merchant at the time of detention, including a customer's past behavior. The ruling also solidifies the high bar for succeeding on a malicious prosecution claim by strictly interpreting the precedent that a criminal dismissal resulting from a compromise or agreement, evidenced by payment of court costs, cannot be used to support the essential elements of favorable termination or lack of probable cause. This prevents individuals from settling criminal charges and then seeking civil damages for the same incident.
